Template:Did you know nominations/Grafton Street
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Grafton Street
- ...
that by 1894, several buildings on Grafton Street had broken windows that were patched up with paper?Source: Bennett, Douglas (2005). The Encyclopaedia of Dublin. Gill & Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-717-13684-1. Pages 114-115- ALT0a: ... that by 1849, several buildings on Grafton Street had broken windows that were patched up with paper? Source: Bennett, Douglas (2005). The Encyclopaedia of Dublin. Gill & Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-717-13684-1. Pages 114-115
- ALT1: ...
that in 2008, Grafton Street was the fifth most expensive main shopping street in the world?Source: https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/arid-20078093.html - ALT2b: ... that in 2008, Grafton Street had the fifth highest property rental prices in the world for retailers? Source: https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/arid-20078093.html
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/2021 in China
Improved to Good Article status by Ritchie333 (talk), SeoR (talk) and Smirkybec (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 02:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Grafton Street, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
- see below
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
@Onegreatjoke and Ritchie333: No copyvio, article is neutral, new enough, well-sourced, hook facts verified. I have an issue with each hook. The first hook's year should be 1849, not 1894, per both the article and the source. I find the second hook slightly misleading. To me, "fifth most expensive main shopping street" intiutively reads as its the fifth most expensive street by cost of goods the street sells. Should be written to specify that its the most expensive to rent. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 01:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- @PerfectSoundWhatever: How about ALT2 "... that In 2008, Grafton Street was the fifth most expensive main shopping street to rent with rental pricing of €5,621/m2/year?" Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- The ambiguity is removed, although the "with rental pricing of €5,621/m2/year" part is a bit too long and reduces hookiness (although I'm fine with it). Just need to fix the 1894/49 thing and we're good to go. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 23:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Onegreatjoke, Ritchie333, and PerfectSoundWhatever: What about rephrasing as ALT2a "... that In 2008, Grafton Street was the fifth most expensive main shopping street where property rents were €5,621/m2/year?" ww2censor (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- I still dislike the ambiguity there, as "expensive" could have both meanings and it is only resolved after the hook is finished. How about: "... that in 2008, Grafton Street had the fifth highest property rent prices in the world?" — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- Stepping in, as the lead article editor for the GA drive is injured, and time passes, although this item does not age. I offer Alt0a to resolve the year, I think this is uncontroversial, it was really just a tiny typo. And for the other, I offer a consolidated Alt2b per review comments. It's interesting that different people interpret the "expensive" point in different ways, and absolutely we should limit ambiguity. Pinging PerfectSoundWhatever; thanks. SeoR (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, approving ALT0a and ALT2b
— PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, approving ALT0a and ALT2b
- Stepping in, as the lead article editor for the GA drive is injured, and time passes, although this item does not age. I offer Alt0a to resolve the year, I think this is uncontroversial, it was really just a tiny typo. And for the other, I offer a consolidated Alt2b per review comments. It's interesting that different people interpret the "expensive" point in different ways, and absolutely we should limit ambiguity. Pinging PerfectSoundWhatever; thanks. SeoR (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I still dislike the ambiguity there, as "expensive" could have both meanings and it is only resolved after the hook is finished. How about: "... that in 2008, Grafton Street had the fifth highest property rent prices in the world?" — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Onegreatjoke, Ritchie333, and PerfectSoundWhatever: What about rephrasing as ALT2a "... that In 2008, Grafton Street was the fifth most expensive main shopping street where property rents were €5,621/m2/year?" ww2censor (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- The ambiguity is removed, although the "with rental pricing of €5,621/m2/year" part is a bit too long and reduces hookiness (although I'm fine with it). Just need to fix the 1894/49 thing and we're good to go. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 23:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
